Hey, ID Creationists!

[Link]

For years now we've been hearing ID creationists go on and on about ways to "detect design", with some prominent IDC's claiming to have tools, "filters", and the like (e.g., Bill Dembski).

Well, given the current COVID pandemic and the questions about the origin of the virus (i.e., whether it was created in a lab), we have an obvious challenge.

Why aren't ID creationists applying their tools and methods to the COVID virus to help us figure out if it was deliberately designed in a lab by "intelligent agents"? Isn't this a perfect opportunity to show their stuff, to put their claims to the test? The sequences are publicly available, so what's stopping them?

Or........now stick with me here......maybe all that was just a bunch crap?

You are ignorant about ID arguments. Thanks for proving that.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

You are ignorant about ID arguments. Thanks for proving that.

I'm ignorant of them as well.

I am a Creationist - but I don't know much about these "filters" or whatever was mentioned in the OP.

Could you share some of these ID arguments if you know them?

 

[Audie]

I didn't say that you were naive. I said that that way of thinking was naive.

No one is getting a Nobel for "proving" that COVID was made in a lab.

All you'd get is Feds chasing you, social media banning you and the MSM smearing you.

World governments are hell-bent on "proving" that COVID is naturally occurring - because they don't want to **** off China.

And even if none of this happened - no one is going to become Creationists over it.

People are going to believe what they are going to believe regardless of "evidence".

You don't take into account the current international scene as well as basic human nature - so that is why I said that that way of thinking was naive.

Not you - but that way of thinking.

Me / my thinking, distinction sans difference.

I see you are pulling out all the stops to try to
support the 100% zero- evidence assertion about ability to show ID is real.
With unsupportable conspiracy and other
claims of what people would do.
So ok- we're done.

 

[Link]

I'm ignorant of them as well.

I am a Creationist - but I don't know much about these "filters" or whatever was mentioned in the OP.

Could you share some of these ID arguments if you know them?

Irreducible complexity has versions where there can be paths to it but to highly unlikely and has a version where it's impossible just by the binary version. The creator of it seems to shy away from the binary version but to me the mind is an example of that. Mind as in a self existing in a thing, a ghost in a machine, no matter how low is a binary thing. No matter how not intense it is, it's a binary thing. It's too vastly different from non-ghost to ghost, to have minor steps traveling towards non-ghost to ghost.

There is also ID who believe mutations happen, but at a pace when needed from the Creator and a level of change where it's impossible to be random mutations. They show computer models to show natural selection without intervention from God in mutations ,will never cause the changes in time needed to survive and adapt. I'm not familiar with too much details. It's been a while since I read books on this.

There is also physics who say life is fined tuned, but also argue that there is many (and they are more probable) of standstill universes where in no longer contracts or expands, just nothing there really, just stuff standing there with nothing formed, and no way to contract again to cause a big bang or anything. If this is true, then even in infinite universes, give them infinite time, none of them would ever get to a design level of fined tuned chances we have in our universe. So they argue - but this is probabilistic argument. Not a definitive one. That is even though 1/trillion chances of design (stars, planets, etc) in a universe, it can be this is a single universe and we get lucky. So this is not 100% sure argument, but it's show Creator is more likely then not from sheer chances.

There is also other things like fruits and their non-toxicity. Evolutions say man-made farms brought all fruits from toxic have to cook nature to what we have now, but to me, you would find more of toxic type all over the earth then our fruits if this was true.

Also I don't think dogs evolved, horses evolved and were tamed in my view, because of a binary nature of wild vs tamed. You can't force it literally, you can't shift wild to tamed. You can tame a wild animal, but not change the genes over a long time of only tamed ones surviving, it doesn't make sense, because wild ones get tamed not for gene reasons. This is something I believe, not seen ID argue on this stance.

Also DNA is like a huge libraries and libraries of instructions and code, if you understand this, and see it, design is so obvious, some people say, all the explanations for it don't make sense and no detailed explanation has even been thought of in theory (can't even think of one) because of it's designed nature. No one will ever be able to prove DNA emerged from other then God, this is not what we are demanding. Just a possible explanation of how that is possible and that can't and has not and will never be provided.

There is also Gaia theory which analysis of it shows earth relies on systems to function and it couldn't be slow gradual to that, because of it's irreducible rely one part on another.

Also I believe literally, the universe is running like a clock that is perfectly timed. Days don't change time through out the year, moon dark side exists because of a huge coincidence that it rotates same speed, and every seems like in the perfect spot like a watch maker. I know of big bang theory, just doesn't make sense to me because I realize everything has to be in the proper place for it not to just break down. The Sun and galaxies are all rotating too, and everything is in fine balance.

 

[Link]

O yeah there is also the argument math wise, there would be almost absolutely more in-between steps of one species to another, and these should be majority of fossil evidence by math (if small mutations yada yada) but it's not the case. I have seen Dawkins mock this half between nature, yet the draw all that stuff in their sketches. He is an idiot and doesn't understand his opponents. But that's expected when his books have even been shown to be all fallacies by atheist philosophers as well.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Me / my thinking, distinction sans difference.

I see you are pulling out all the stops to try to
support the 100% zero- evidence assertion about ability to show ID is real.
With unsupportable conspiracy and other
claims of what people would do.
So ok- we're done.

No - all I'm saying is that COVID is not a good test for any ID Creationist who believes they can prove it.

And "unsupportable conspiracy" - are you serious?

People have been getting banned off social media for a year for claiming that COVID was made in a lab.

It is only recently that people in the media have been talking about it.

 

[Audie]

No - all I'm saying is that COVID is not a good test for any ID Creationist who believes they can prove it.

And "unsupportable conspiracy" - are you serious?

People have been getting banned off social media for a year for claiming that COVID was made in a lab.

It is only recently that people in the media have been talking about it.

Hard to believe you are serious, but whatevs

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How does that "seem" to be the case, exactly?
Be specific.

I should have said, “seems possible.”
Due to the WHO's director-general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who said, “All hypotheses remain open and require further study."

And Dr Fauci now says he's "not convinced" the virus originated naturally.

No kidding? Creationists with a religious agenda agree with a misrepresentation of the evidence in support of an idea that rivals their religious beliefs? Shocking!

You might accuse the others of bias based on a religious outlook, but not Dr. Günter Bechly. In fact he gave up his prestigious position with the Stuttgart NHM due to the evidence alone.

Do I “even know…”? Why are you so belittling & abrasive? There’s no need.

Of course certain specific things can be shown
to have been designed [like SETI].

Why? Do patterns of information communicating purposeful intent possibly enter the picture?
I doubt you’d admit it.

 

[Audie]

Why? Do patterns of information communicating purposeful intent possibly enter the picture?
I doubt you’d admit it.

You know that really should be beneath you
to act like that.
Some reason for it?
Could you try to respond with no gratuitous insult, and on topic?

You know, avoiding bias, belittling, the abrasive and all that rot?
I said nothing to deserve that.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Hard to believe you are serious, but whatevs

Why is that?

 

[Audie]

Why is that?

I think my comment must have been for someone else

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If this were true, then SETI would have been useless from its inception.

SETI's quite useful; it's just the first step.

And if it were to find a previously-unknown, undesigned natural phenomenon... that would be awesome, too.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You know that really should be beneath you
to act like that.
Some reason for it?
Could you try to respond with no gratuitous insult, and on topic?

You know, avoiding bias, belittling, the abrasive and all that rot?
I said nothing to deserve that.

Exactly how did I belittle you?

Just deal with facts, not perceptions.

 

[Audie]

Exactly how did I belittle you?

Just deal with facts, not perceptions.

You know what you did.
Zero respect is due those who can take
no responsibility for themselves.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You know what you did.

And so does everyone else, who’s following this conversation. I’m content.

Zero respect is due those who can take
no responsibility for themselves.

Ain’t that the truth!

 

[Brian2]

No, that's not so. See post 30. There is no way to define "design" in an objectively scientific way, so that researchers can agree when it is observed in nature.

Design can be detected in human artefacts, e.g. flint axeheads, or Paley's watch, but that is because we know how humans design things. Once you try attributing design to God, who is specifically presumed not to be bound by the laws of nature, it could take any form at all. So it becomes useless as a criterion for discriminating between one thing and another.

So no scientists (or no reputable ones) have said they have detected design. That's a myth.

But scientists (reputable I presume) have said that they have not found design in nature.
I was being sarcastic in the post you responded to.

 

[exchemist]

But scientists (reputable I presume) have said that they have not found design in nature.
I was being sarcastic in the post you responded to.

What that means is they have not wasted time looking for "design", as it is obviously a silly thing to do, for the reasons I have given you.

Is that clear now?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I should have said, “seems possible.”
Due to the WHO's director-general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who said, “All hypotheses remain open and require further study."

And Dr Fauci now says he's "not convinced" the virus originated naturally.

You picked 2 sources out of many, and these 2 amount to, at best, "we don't know".
That's quite different from "it seems to be that..."

You might accuse the others of bias based on a religious outlook, but not Dr. Günter Bechly. In fact he gave up his prestigious position with the Stuttgart NHM due to the evidence alone.

The guy is associated with the Discovery Institute.
That puts him in the exact same camp as Behe and his con-artist collegues.
Nice try though.

And aside from that, why do you put your trust in the marginal 0.01% of people with a degree in biology, while ignoring the 99.99%?

Do I “even know…”? Why are you so belittling & abrasive? There’s no need.

Who or what are you quoting?

 

[Brian2]

If you consider the laws of nature to be the building blocks, then I might agree with you.

But from then on, there is no reason not to apply the principle of methodological naturalism, i.e. presumption of natural causes for natural phenomena, in other words to uncover how nature works by means of science, given its fantastic track record of success and its continuing progress.

To me, how nature works is discovered in things that happen now.
The extrapolation of that into the past to find out how the universe began and how life started, is, as you say, a presumption of natural causes for natural phenomena, and cannot discover anything, just presume it.
Should it be called "science" with that presumption of natural causes and looking at things that cannot be tested?
If ID is not called science then possibly not.
To start off with the laws of nature seems a big ask when surely laws do not exist without the material to be laws over. The existence of both is also a presumption which it seems to me cannot be discovered, just presumed.

 

[Brian2]

What that means is they have not wasted time looking for "design", as it is obviously a silly thing to do, for the reasons I have given you.

Is that clear now?

I don't waste time looking in any scientific way but that does not mean I can't look at science and use intuition.
Empiricism it seems can only take us a certain distance.
Reasoning and faith seems to get people a lot further in the search for God than just plain empiricism,,,,,,,,,,mixed with scepticism.
And as you seem to say, it is no good looking for God using science.